The figures you see here are illustrative composites — here's exactly what that means and why we build them that way.
01Our methodology in plain language
Every number on this site describes a type of transaction or pattern, not a specific race, filing, or cycle. When we say a media buyer typically retains a certain share of an ad buy, or that a given committee type dominates a particular channel, we're drawing on patterns observed across publicly available disclosure data — FEC filings, lobbying registrations, state campaign finance records — and presenting them as representative ranges, not pinned figures from a single report.
We do this deliberately. Political spending shifts substantially from cycle to cycle, and a precise number lifted from one race can mislead more than it informs. Composites and ranges stay accurate longer and travel across contexts without implying a false precision.
Where we cite real mechanics — how disclosure rules work, what triggers a lobbying registration, how a Super PAC is structured — those descriptions reflect actual statutes and regulatory guidance. We flag when something is a modelled illustration versus a statutory fact.
Figures are rounded to the nearest intuitive unit (whole percentages, round dollar amounts) unless a precise figure meaningfully changes the interpretation. We avoid decimal-point precision on estimates; it implies a confidence the underlying data doesn't support.
We revisit illustrative figures periodically. Spending patterns, channel mixes, and donor thresholds all drift over time, and a guide that quietly goes stale does readers a disservice.
If you spot something that looks wrong — a number that seems off, a mechanic described inaccurately — the contact link in the footer reaches a human. We'd rather be corrected than confidently wrong.
Every figure here is an illustrative composite, rounded for clarity. See How We Count for the method — we model no single race, party, or candidate.